Gábor Szabó, UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT VERSUS THE HUMAN RIGHT TO SUBSISTENCE
9
Original scientific paper
UDK 342.72:349.6
327:342.7
341.231.14(6)
Received: December 2014
Gábor Szabó, PhD,
Associate Professor*
UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT VERSUS THE
HUMAN RIGHT TO SUBSISTENCE
”Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.”
Martin Luther King
Summary:
Key words:
The realization and the acceptance of the fact that most dangerous problems humanity has to face are global, and thus their prevention and mitigation is only possible
through coordinated, trans-national efforts, it is still incomplete. The right to develompent as a human right is a new branch on the ever-growing tree called the human rights system. The development strategies should focus on basic human needs.
The scarce resources play a major role in fostering the human rights abuses of today.
If the programmes which distinguish human rights from the use of scarce resources
prevail, the progress that has hitherto been achieved as regards human rights will be
reversed. The Ogoni case can be considered precedent-establishing in the light of the
tragic consequences of competition for scarce resources.
development, human rights, right to development, HDI, Ogoni-case
. INTRODUCTION
A typical attempt in the decades following the Second World War by the main institutions of
the international community was the declaration of certain principles which clearly tried to lift
legal-moral commitments and responsibilities to a supranational, global level. Among the most
important of these were the internatonal legal documents based on the universality of human
rights, the humanitarian law, and the international environmental law. The first set of rights
was, and still is, subject to heavy debates, its universality being questioned by many. The succesfull protection of human rights was often subjugated to the bipolar world’s logic of power, and
our post-bipolar era, in spite of some slight developments, has failed to alter this dynamic.
*
Gábor Szabó is Associate Professor of Department of Legal Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Pécs, Hungary, 48-as tér
1. He specializes in human rights, globalization, ethics.
PRAVNI VJESNIK GOD. 31 BR. 2, 2015.
10
Starting in the late ’60s’ of the last century, a growing number of theorists expressed concerns that an ecological crisis was occurring on a global level, and that the solution to this crisis
required complex and effectively coordinated efforts. A new awareness of the global ecological
crisis inevitably lead to a critical reconsideration of the paradigms of human development. The
diverse issues surrounding development certainly had an effect on the strutucures and principles that were intended to safeguard universal human rights.
The first efforts to safeguard universal human rights imposed requirements on individual
states, and demanded that the individual’s autonomy be protected from government coercion,
and that every individual should have the right to participate in public affairs. Such claims had
emerged gradually during the 20th century – their main ambition was to guarantee the basic
conditions for self-realization and the safety of the individual. While the first set of legal norms
sought to prevent infringes of an individual’s rights, the second set contained new obligations
that concerned solidarity toward others which was also made manifest in active participation.
The latest set of legal norms related to universal human rights began to be formulated in the
1980’s, and were concerned not only the human rights of individuals but also the collective rights
of entire societies. One particular such human right, which will be focused on in this paper, is the
right to development. This right, as detailed later, reinterprets efforts to codify universal human
rights by emphasizing the coherence of the human rights system and prohibits the application
of human rights that conflict with universal principles.
This essay will focus on two elements of this human rights system, and thereby demonstrate the immense contradictions within the current economical and development paradigms. The
first is the right to subsistence, which is a collective term,1 and the second is the human right to
development. The aim of this essay is to prove that the current, universally prevailing economical- and development-paradigm fall short of meeting the basic requirements of human rights to
subsistence and development, and are thus unsustainable both on the environmental and the
social level.
II. GLOBALIZATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS – CRUCIAL ISSUES
The multi-faceted, complex process termed globalization has had a significant impact on the
understanding and realisation of human rights. I have elaborated my arguments in my book
”Our Splitting World – The Risks of Globalization to Human Rights”.2 This paper would like to limit the arguments to the more crucial issues.
During the last three or four decades, globalization resulted in the unprecedented intensification of transborder flows (goods, capital, money, people, risks, ideas, fashions, information,
consumer habits, and environmental damage). Hence it’s originality, for we know of certain historical periods, when some of the aforementioned elements of transborder flows were significant, but history doesn’t record any other era when all of these flows were significant.
1
Henry SHUE, BASIC RIGHTS, SUBSISTENCE, AFFLUENCE AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY pp. 22–29. (1980).
2
Gábor SZABÓ, SZÉTSZAKADÓ VILÁGUNK: A GLOBALIZÁCIÓ EMBERI JOGI KOCKÁZATAI. (2010).
Gábor Szabó, UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT VERSUS THE HUMAN RIGHT TO SUBSISTENCE
11
Globalization rapidly shaped the points of reference of 7 billion people along with a global set
of relations. Human rights were asserted to be universal with the establishment of the UN. A series of protective mechanisms were established that proved most effective within the trans-Atlantic region. The delay between the effective international (global) protection of human rights
and the scope and acceleration of transborder flows is glaring. In the realm of international law,
human safety became a legal value (often limiting other human rights), and sustainable development became a priority.3 However, the realisation and acceptance of the fact that the most dangerous problems humanity has to face are global, and thus their prevention and mitigation is
only possible through coordinated, trans-national efforts, is still incomplete.
The 1980’s can certainly be viewed as the beginning of a neo-conservative counter-revolution. While the ”upheaval” of 1968 expressed solidarity with the ”third world”, criticized the military-industrial complex, and nurtured an immature, idealistic, hence contradictory notion of
environmental protection, the neoconservative turn of the ’80’s was nothing more than the embrace of 19th century laissez-faire capitalism which was used to attack the modern welfare state. This same ideology denied responsibility for the underdevelopment of the third world based
on some socio-Darwinist apologia, in order to ensure a clear conscience for citizens of the overconsuming centre. Since the three main ideas of the neoconservative (neoliberal) canon: liberalization, privatization and deregulation, could not deliver neither sustainable economical results
nor consolidated and democratic relations based on human rights either in the majority of the
countries on the global south, or the countries in the former Soviet sphere of interest (including
Hungary). Neoconservative and neoliberal ideologists tend more and more to see and present
this not as the imperative consequence of unsustainable global dynamics, but as a result of cultural characteristics. (I use the terms neoconservative and neoliberal deliberately in turns. The
two ideologies may differ in certain aspects, but in regards of the economic philosophy, views
on development and underdevelopment of their representatives, they are essentially the same.)
This ”explanation” severely damaged their faith in the universality of human rights. The
background was (explicitly and implicitly alike) the propagation of the superiority of western civilisation, including the belief that the development programmes of western countries are superior – and this translated into cultural imperialism in the target states. These neoconservative – neoliberal development programmes often delivered undesired, unsustainable and unpleasant economic methods which satisfied exclusively the needs of a narrow elite but disregarded
the desired and valued idea of human rights. The Eastern-European political changes provided
a brand new terrain for experiments based on the aforementioned neoconservative principles,
with sorrowful results: the disappointment caused by economical-political mistakes undermined the importance of human rights and the rule of law, and paved the way for populist, authoritarian, and even fundamentally far-right movements. A copious number of theorists have expressed the view that transformations based on neoliberal economical ideas should not be separated from the simultaneous defence of human rights, i.e. the transformation based on the ”Washington-consensus”, does not necessarily lead to better human rights conditions.4
A determining aspect of globalization is the ”infocomm” revolution, offering better chances
of intercultural dialogue and the mitigation of isolation. If however the global communications
industry exists solely as the transmitter of a homogeneous, americanised culture, it can easily
3
Antal, ÁDÁM, BÖLCSELET, VALLÁS, ÁLLAMI EGYHÁZJOG, pp. 85–91. (2007).
4
See Joseph E. STIGLITZ, A GLOBALIZÁCIÓ ÉS VISSZÁSSÁGAI. pp. 25–38. (2003); László ANDOR, ELTÉVEDT ÉLLOVAS. Siker
és kudarc a rendszerváltó gazdaságpolitikában. pp. 161–168. (2010).
PRAVNI VJESNIK GOD. 31 BR. 2, 2015.
12
displace the appearance of differing opinions, like those of immigrants or native peoples. Fair
cooperation between local communities and global, transnational economic agents is, therefore,
crucial in safeguarding sustainable development.
The central-peripheric relations took a positive course in China, India and Brazil. The three
countries have different development arcs and human rights situations, but all three experienced economical success based on their ability to channel capital – created by questionable efforts.
As regards changes in the quality of life in these three countries, the picture is not that bright,
with the possible exception of Brazil. The majority of the periphery (Africa) has, however, moved
further away from the centre in the last two decades, in spite of posessing a vast majority of resources necessary for the centre.
A significant number of the armed conflicts and gross human rights violations of our era are
connected with the rising need to control over the scarce resources. Without a structural change,
monocultural economies are like gamblers: if the global market price of the monocultural product is high, the result is prosperity and development opportunities, but if the price is dropping,
collapse, failed states and human rights catastrophies can be expected.
The majority of third world countries do not profit from the global free market. Their own
products have little chance to compete at their real market price, due to the protectionist policy
of the central states, political power is a battleground of minor groups of elites in many of them,
the comprador elite – after Wallenstein – interested in the export of resources and raw materials, and the devastating exploitation of the natural environment.5 We will examine an example
of such problems through the Ogoni-case later.
III. SUBSISTENCE AND DEVELOPMENT AS HUMAN RIGHTS
The human right of subsistence can be interpreted in many ways, so I shall focus on introducing it’s more important aspects. The right to subsistence means more than simply having the
minimal conditions for survival. One interpretation regards the right to subsistence as the right
to food and drinking water, shelter, clothing, basic healthcare, a habitable environment, sovereignty over natural resources, education and fair working conditions. Evidently, sovereignty over
natural resources emerges on a community level, the right to a habitable environment both on
community and individual level, while the other rights can be considered solely as the right of
the individual. A view often expressed until recently in debates about the enforceability of human rights is that this set of rights depends exclusively on the economic capacity of the state.
This argument was mainly used to relativise the right of subsistence, in most cases by agents interested in such relativisation (managers of multinational companies, politicians competing for
imported natural resources).
It is not too difficult to see however, that the chances of individual and social subsistence within the scope of one country are deeply embedded in international, global casemaps.6 The last
three decades obviously brought to the majority of the world the triumph of modern market
5
Immanuel WALLERSTEIN, THE MODERN WORLD-SYSTEM. (1974) (1980).
6
See Wesley T. MILNER, Economic Globalization and Rights. An Empirical Analysis, in GLOBALIZATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS pp.
90–94. (Alison BRYSK ed. 2002).
Gábor Szabó, UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT VERSUS THE HUMAN RIGHT TO SUBSISTENCE
13
principles over social and ecological concerns.7 The free market without any correction helps the
interests of the strong to prevail, not to mention the brutal fact that hypocritical decisions based
on the ”rules of the market” are established without the local communities’ involvement, stripping them on occasion of the basic requirements of life. The development plans that prevail are
those that serve market interests, and when applied often impacted adversely on the quality of
life of populations in countries with vulnerable economies.
The right to development as a human right is a new branch on the ever-growing tree called
the human rights system. It was first declared by a UN General Assembly resolution.
Although not in explicit terms, but from all the paradigms of development policy, the 41/128
(1986) resolution of the UN General Assembly in practice determines the method for securing
basic human needs: ”(…) Enjoyment of certain human rights and fundamental freedoms cannot
justify the denial of other human rights and fundamental freedoms, (…) Recognizing that the
human person is the central subject of the development process and that development policy
should therefore make the human being the main participant and beneficiary of development
(…)”8
This citation clearly shows how the UN resolution distanced itself from the so-called human
rights trade-offs, which assert that the ”temporary” suspension of certain basic human rights is
necessary to secure economic growth and stimulate inward investment. This antithesis is called
the Li-thesis, after the former president of Singapore, a member of the ”Four Asian Tigers”, states who delivered a positive example.9
The connotations of the term ”development” made the composers of the resolution cautious, because, as Tarrósy also notes, the colonialist western powers made ”development” a term
that legitimizes colonialisation, binding the forced expansion of cultural patterns with the invasive conquest of territories, as opposed to the local traditions that were labeled ”primitive”.10 The
term had thus to be stripped of those negative connotations that still lived in the historical memory of the former colonies. Due to the lack of sufficient distance, we can’t be sure whether this
effort was succesful or not.
Denis Goulet, an influential theorist on the ethics of development distinguishes four basic
development strategies: (Goulet, 1995)
1. Motivation of economic growth ”by any means”. The ideology has anglo-saxon roots, can be
considered dominant since the ’80’s, and aims to justify the current trends of globalization.
2. Economic growth in combination with significant state redistribution, aiming for equality
and support for research and development. There are many variatons of this, the idea itself comes from Scandinavia, where it has been flawlessly succesful, but a few Asian and South
American countries have experimented with this approach as well. It prioritizes social mobility, and seeks to shatter the privileges of economical elite groups (oligarchies), or feudal/tribal casts. The South American version also aims to lessen dependency on central countries,
and is generally a feature of far-left political programmes.
7
See Gábor SCHEIRING, A nemzetközi fejlesztéspolitika helyzete és feladatai, in GLOBALIZÁCIÓ ÉS FEJLŐDÉS A
FÉLPERIFÉRIÁN:VÁLSÁG ÉS ALTERNATÍVÁK. p. 29. (Boda-Scheiring eds.).
8
www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r128.htm (downloaded 11. 2. 2013).
9
See Amartya SEN, A FEJLŐDÉS, MINT SZABADSÁG (The Development as Freedom). pp. 36–37. (2003).
10
See István TARRÓSY, Érzelmek geopolitikája, in AZ ELKÖTELEZETT TANÍTÓ: TISZTELETKÖTET CSIZMADIA SÁNDOR 65.
SZÜLETÉSNAPJÁRA. p. 146. (2012).
PRAVNI VJESNIK GOD. 31 BR. 2, 2015.
14
3. Development focusing on basic human needs. Can be considered as an ”alter-global” development strategy, it’s main point being the fair social control of the consumption and distribution of resources, especially food and water, with the social support of basic public services
such as healthcare or education. This enables poor countries and regions to show significant
results in terms of quality of human development index (HDI). Notable examples are Kerala,
(India), Srí Lanka, and even hard dictatorships with profound economic disadvantages, such
as Eritrea in securing adequate food and acces to water to people in the last decade, at least
comparing with its neighbours.
4. The most radical alternative to mainstream development policies is development based on
local traditions. Many variations are possible, the idea they have in common is that they are
sceptical about the achievements of modernization, and prefer traditional methods of production, which often goes hand in hand with a policy of isolation. This programme is mainly
employed by leaders of countries lacking mineral (oil) resources in the islamic world.
Let’s examine the contradiction between the development paradigm detailed under 1. (above) and the content of the 41/128 (1986) resolution of the UN General Assembly. The first article
of the resolution declares that local communities have the right to sovereignty over the natural
resources found on the territory they inhabit. The neoconservative/neoliberal development model that prioritizes economic growth finds it necessary however, in order to ”completely utilize”
the natural resources, that the local communities deliver the natural resources found on their
territory to the influential participants of the global market, even below the market price.
Take as an example one of the basic natural resources: water. Local communities in Ethiopia,
Mali, Sudan, Pakistan, and in numerous other countries, are victims of a water management policy that condemns them to total ”desiccation”. The recipe is the same in every case: Typically foreign companies (based in Saudi Arabia, China, the United Kingdom) buy huge acreages in the
aforementioned countries, so they can grow food or cotton for export using local water supplies.
In the last few years, companies from Saudi Arabia bought several million hectares of land in Ethiopia (the junta’s compliance was easily purchased), to grow food exclusively for their own domestic consumption, watering the crops with the local, scarce water supply and thereby denying
the local communities a basic condition of life. Analysing this situation strictly from the neoconservative/neoliberal approach, we may state, that international investors paid for dry, useless land which they subsequently made fertile. The scale tips toward positive for Ethiopia too.
The devil is in the details: the aim of the purchase was not the land itself but the water resources, which are even more scarce in Saudi Arabia than in Ethiopia.11 Since one third of the African population is forced to exist on territories lacking accessable water, and this situation is becoming worse due to climate change, the medium-term consequences of land purchase methods
described above could be catastrophic. The water policy of the Eritrean government in contrast
forbids the privatisation of scarce water supplies and thereby reduces the likelhood of significant droughts.
A specific new term has adopted in the theory of development policy and human rights:
”hydro-colonialism”, signifying a new dependency imposed through the control of water supplies. The leading role of China and a handful of extremely rich Arab countries in this process is striking, which creates a difficult task for the movements that criticise globalisation exclusively on
11
http:/www.grain.org/article/entires/4516-squeezing–africa-dry-behind-every-land-grab-is-a-water-grab.
(downloaded: 14. 6. 2012).
Gábor Szabó, UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT VERSUS THE HUMAN RIGHT TO SUBSISTENCE
15
an anti-capitalist, anti-western basis. The Parliament of European capitalist states, the European Parliament, for example, endorsed a proposal during the sudden increasing of hydro-colonialism on the 25th of November 2010, that sought to impose a respect for human rights and the
necessity of preserving social and environmental norms on all international trade aggreements.
Summarising the contents of development paradigms, we can state the following.
1. The majority of desicion-makers still view development solely as growth in the GDP per capita, which can be achieved by economic growth. This one index however does not tell anything
about the scale of internal inequalities or quality of life. As the case of Kerala or Srí Lanka
shows, prosperous quality of life-indexes can be achieved even with modest GDP-statistics.
2. Other opinions identify development with the sustainable usage of productive capacities
(human resources, environment). It’s main obstacle is the unequal, unfair transfer of resources, often augmented by protectionalism and numerous forms of post-colonial dependency,
that conserve or strengthen the oligarchization and/or caste-structure of the affected countries.
3. The approach detailed in 2. has been partially incorporated in the UNDP declaration on sustainable human development.
We need to examine the UNDP declaration in more detail, for this document tries to summarise the main components of sustainable human development.
1. Freedom from famine, suffering, and the deprivation of civil rights, which affirms the need
for participation in community decision-making.
2. Cooperation. The basic need of every individual is to belong to someone, to be recognized,
to be able to cooperate with others. This can only become part of human rights’ regulations
through a negative approach, meaning: those international agreements, which deprive individuals or communities of this ability, may not be supported.
3. Fairness. Education is necessary in order to expand human capacities and recognise possibilities. This had already been acknowledged in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights as a human right.
4. Sustainability. Only a strategy taking the basic needs of future generations into consideration may be supported.
5. Security. Security of habitat, especially against threats, hazards, oppression, sickness, and
immunity from forced and/or immediate desertion of the habitat.
This summary demonstrates a noticeably coherent approach, and also that the economic,
social and cultural rights need to be coordinated with the newest generation of human rights.
Regrettably, apart from the quoted declaration of the UN General Assembly, a comprehensive
agreement on the security of habitat mentioned in 5. which is also applicable within the scope of
human rights has not yet been created. Despite the fact that water and mineral resources, labeled scarce resources, are sources of conflicts that create drastic humanitarian, human rights and
environmental problems.
PRAVNI VJESNIK GOD. 31 BR. 2, 2015.
16
IV. ECONOMIC GROWTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
The 1994 UNDP declaration is also significant as a shift from development concepts based on
economic growth and GDP per capita-indicators. Numerous statistics support, for example, the
fact that a significant indicator of human quality of life, life expectancy, does not always clearly
correspond with the amount of GDP per capita. Let us examine two European countries prior to
the 2008 crisis. With a yearly GDP per capita of 23.000 $, the life expectancy in the UK is 75 years
for males, and 81 years for female population, while in Greece, having a significantly lower yearly
GDP per capita of 17.000 $, the respective numbers are 77 and 83. These statistics depend on many
complex factors of course, but they nevertheless tinge the assumption about the relationship
between quality of life and the state of development. The officially acknowledged indicator of development became the HDI (human development index), listed through the acknowledgment of
various points of view, as formulated by the UNDP.
Arguably, the financial-economic crisis that began in 2008 is a consequence of the neo-liberal
emphasis on economic growth. Large masses of people were only able to purchase the results of
accelerating production with unsecured loans, wage increases did not correspond to the scale of
growth, the population of poor countries could not become solvent, and new markets could not
emerge sufficiently rapidly. The examples of China and Brasilia show that growing living standards are followed by severe environmental degradation, and this cannot be cured by the free flow
of capital. China, the greatest beneficiary of the mobility of capital also became the country that
pollutes the atmosphere the most – the biggest CO2 emitter.
If we make the basic needs of communities the focus of development, and do so according
to the UNDP declaration, on the grounds of environmental sustainability, we can argue against
Ibrahim Mayaki on multiple fronts, who, as the former leader of the NEPAD (New Partnership
for Africa’s Development, a pan-African organisation), sided with the paradigm of development
that focuses on growth. As he stated, you can’t put the cart before the horse, powerty can not be
alleviated without economic growth.12 If we view powerty, according to Sen, as the lack of possibilities, the picture is far from being that simple.13
More oil-exporting countries showed an impressive economic growth over the last decades
(Chad, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea), without alleviating the desperate powerty of the majority
of their population. According to the aforementioned, we can explain this by saying: economic
growth is a necessary, but not sufficient premise for any development which focuses on addressing basic needs. Let us compare a few countries below, based on different aspects in connection
with basic needs. The GDP per capita follows the name of the country (in brackets), the difference in the respective aspect stands at the end of the row as a multiplier, which can be used between the two percentages shown.14
12
Ibrahim MAYAKI, NEW APPROACH NEEDED. IN NEPAD DIALOGUE. (March 2010).
13
Sen, supra note 10, pp. 144–179.
14
Source: www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Országok_egy_fore_juto_GDP_szerinti_listaja (2010).
www.seano.who.int; www.nationmaster.com.
Gábor Szabó, UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT VERSUS THE HUMAN RIGHT TO SUBSISTENCE
17
Country
.
GDP/c
(USD)
Rate
Country
.
GDP/c
(USD)
Rate
Multiplier
13 500
38%
3.8x
Illiteracy
Srí Lanka
2420
10%
Saudi-Arabia
Clean water
Kerala
(India)
1300
96%
Indonesia
2980
88%
0.92x
Safety
(crime rate)
Costa Rica
7940
50%
compared
to Mexico
Mexico
9200
100%
-2x
Famine
Eritrea
400
5%
Djibuti
1300
15%
3x
These statistics are, of course, connected with a variety of factors that require in-depth
analysis, but they still comprise an adequate example of how different the strategies for sustainable human development can be, with one thing in common: securing food, water, shelter, security, and literacy serving as the absolute priorities. From the aspect of a theorist, it may be important to investigate how countries that followed different political ideologies could still arrive at similar development strategies. The marxist regime of Kerala, the ”left-wing” harsh dictatorship in Eritrea, the christian-socialists of Costa Rica, and the unique traditionalist-buddhist
government of Sri Lanka all stand on the same stage in one aspect: development has to be serve
the fulfilment of the basic needs of the population.
We should note that the countries of the centre have been quite ambivalent towards these
experiments. Eritrea is regarded as one of the countries with the least freedom and democracy
by the international monitoring groups. The UN also authorized sanctions against the country,
allegedly for supporting an Ethiopian rebellion, although Eritrea is the only state in the region,
which – especially on the ground of it’s fresh independency – makes meticulous efforts to stay
neutral in one of the world’s busiest wasp’s nests; the horn of Africa. Eritrea neither yielded to
American efforts to expand their military influence, nor to the global economic powers which
craved its water-resources and potential for monocultural exports, and thus became a ”pariah”
which still seeks to secure the minimal requirements of life for the population, despite it’s isolation, in contrast to neighbouring Ethiopia. Kerala is the ”star” of the alter-globe theorists, putting
in an incredible performance through the last three decades. While the whole of India became
a ”triumph” of globalisation without the majority of the population experiencing improvement
in quality of life, Kerala’s main quality of life indicators soar far above the Indian average. Costa
Rica became the ”Switzerland of Latin-America”, being the country that managed to rope-walk
between the regimes of far-right juntas and the adventurous centralisation efforts of rebellious
guerillas, and transformed itself into a moderate, consolidated country open to international capital while also remaining committed to human-centric development. Srí Lanka was practically
devastated by the tsunami in 2007. Exemplary cooperation between local and international humanitarian and development organisations occurred in the following years, and today Sri Lanka
manifests relatively high quality of life statistics, compared to it’s GDP per capita. These examples
support the possibility that development which is environmentally sustainable and focuses on
basic needs is a realistic option. The only question is, whether the domestic or outside casemaps
are in favor of such strategies or not.
PRAVNI VJESNIK GOD. 31 BR. 2, 2015.
18
Why is a development model based exclusively on economic growth unsustainable? I would
summarize the answer in the following five paragraphs:
1. Because it is based upon endless growth and emission, which is short-termist strategy considering the physical limits of resources.
2. Because scarce resources play a major role in fostering the human rights abuses of today, and
the situation can only become worse. If the case of human rights becomes separated from the
neoliberal/neoconservative economic programmes, there is a chance that the defence of human
rights can be connected with the provision of basic needs to maximize development. If however the programmes which distinguish human rights from the use of scarce resources prevail, the progress that has hitherto been achieved as regards human rights will be reversed.
3. Because the current situation in which the world’s richest 20% consume 83% of resources is
ridiculous – the right to sovereignty over resources cannot be effective under these conditions.
4. Because 70% of the world’s population is forced to give up their own resources, while gaining
next to nothing in return.
5. Because consumer society is endlessly wasteful, and it’s power and commercial hubs spread this model as a unique value throghout the world. The last time the masses questioned
the values of consumer society was in 1968. Today, the younger generation not only bhas failed to revolt against these values but takes them for granted. On top of this, far-right movements have combined their obsession with ancient racial origins with consumables, relics,
t-shirts and music. It is quite grotesque to observe the multiplication of companies in Hungary, for example, that derive a portion of their profts from various items emblazoned with
supposedly ancient runic writing. These phenomena are perfect examples of the state described by Hardt and Negri: consumer society creates the same world, which it populates,15 meaning it can create its own order based on his own logic without the consumer masses even
noticing it. This is the way for multinational corporations to remain world brands while trampling human rights and severely polluting the environment to maintain their position in global markets without their consumers even being aware of this behaviour. The illustration and
synthesis of the topic of this paper is the Ogoni-case, an environmental and humanitarian
catastrophe that recieved no media coverage in our region.
V. THE NEOLIBERAL/NEOCONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC
PROGRAMMES’ ECOLOGICAL BLINDNESS
Each of the environmental risks are in strong connection with social diseases. Just one of the
very common examples: the scarcity of the wood supply made the tropical forests very vulnerable to the profit oriented global wood market, the counties on which territories have huge tropical forest mainly poor ones. These countires, or rather some of their landlords could benefit from
deforestation, but in the long run it would destroy the productivity of the land, causing erosion,
natural disasters, and contributing to the climate change. As we stated above in no. 2, the basic
–needs are included in the human rights framework, and the liveable environment is an essen15
Michael HARDT; Antonio NEGRI, EMPIRE, (2002).
Gábor Szabó, UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT VERSUS THE HUMAN RIGHT TO SUBSISTENCE
19
tial part of the basic human needs. Many of our contemporary human rights viloations are related to the scarce resources, and environmental degradation.
Michael Zürn distinguishes the harms caused by the ”over-consumption” and the harms caused by the poverty. These two factors are interconnected, and this fact is very important for environmental ethics. The harms caused by the over-consumption spread around the world, thus
its influences affect not only whose consumption level is not sustainable (ozone-hole, greenhouse effect, the contamination of water, land, air). The vast masses of unrecycable waste is the
only local environmental burden which caused by the over-consumption. On the other hand the
environmental harms caused by the poverty are the consequences of food shortages and economic defencelessness16. The forced urbanization , the mono-cultural agriculture, the animals and
plants trafficking as raw materials, the delivery of scarce water supply for the industry (like Coca
Cola in India) may cause serious local contamination, dissapearing species, bloody struggles for
the resources, desertation, dependency on import of food-products. At least the two-third of the
world countries could be ranked among the poor countries. The environmental consequences of
poverty are obviously much more local, than the harms caused by the over-consumption, but
the medium term effects of the former are certainly extensive. Paradoxically the consumption of
over-consumers considerably depends on the helplessness of the poor.
The basic goods of the environment has been counted in the theories in favor of the unlimited freedom of markets as freely accessible goods, and often goods with endlessly absorption capacity. Since the using of air, for example hardly could be regulated within territorial borders,
the cost-benefit analysis has to face with serious problems. For the effectiveness of cost-benefit
analysis the actors in the calculation should be very exact, they sould be within a limited circle.
The unwanted extern effects, as costs are uncertain also in both in time and in space. How can we
involve into the cost-benefit calculation the intersets of future generations?
In a free market to preserve the environment often leads to trade-offs. One of the most
frequent trade off is the environmental values versus the feeedom of property and enterprize. The businessmen want to make profit as soon as possible, as much as possible, if the rules
let them to do, they obviously will. Let me remind you the tragedy in Bophal in 1986 (nineteen
eighty six), in India, where a US company led chemical industry exploded because the lack of the
effective environmental and safety law, and caused horrible human and environmental harm in
the region. The globalized economy also lacks for the effective environmental law, so only some
of the corporations, comapnies who have strenght advantage in the market could afford to take
into consideration the environmental protection aspects seriously. (Procter and Gamble)
The recent decades in the global business sphere has become popular the so called ”green
market”. Some would think it’s just another marketing strategy, which builds on the enhancing
environmental sensibility and consciousness of the consumers. I also think, that this green business movement leads us astray if we want to handle the problem at its roots. Of course if you do
good and it is paying also, it may be ethically blameless. But if we take a look at the envireonment
as a whole, it’s conditions hasn’t been improved due to this strategy. Why?
The consumers’decisions are determeined by their preferences. The clean, healthy environment could be a shelter, which we bought for a lot of money. But does our consumption,
which is necessary for this clean, healty, and comforable environment leave untouched others’
access to the resources, and other’s chances for the clean, healty and comfortable environment?
”Do not cause to others such things, which you do not wish for yourself” – states the Golden Rule
16
See Michael ZÜRN, ”Globale Gefahrdungen und Internationale Kooperation”. In: DER BÜRGER IM STAAT, 1995, p. 45.
PRAVNI VJESNIK GOD. 31 BR. 2, 2015.
20
of ethics. Does the consumer know which product caused how much environmental harm during its production? Are the costs of environmental damages reflected in a certain product’s prize? Certainly no, and indeed it is almost impossible, because of the unforeseeable effects. So if
we offer as a solution the ”polluter pay” principle, we may ease the problem, but the involving the
environmental risks into cost-benefit calculation remains unsolveable.
As citizens, we may be able to trade off our short term interests, and our long term interests.
But if we would like to take into the consideration our long term interests, we wuld need correct
inmformation, sometimes expertise. If the trade off is between the comfort and a job versus the
unforseeable future, we can bet for the result. It is very hard, but essential work for the academic
sphere and the civil society to explain to the ordenary citizen why the biodiversity is so important. In spite of that I still don’t think that some kind of eco-dictatorship would be necessary for
persuading the people. The fruitful inteaction between tha local, national and a global levels would be desirable on the basis of a well elaborated environmental law, and on the changes of minds. The environmental problems are so complex, the aim is distant, and there is several concepts
of good life competing with each other. There’s no other way, but the limiting of the market on
global scale, support the local production, and get rid off the fixed idea of the economic growth,
and the conception that good life means material well beeing. It is partially a question of law,
but mostly ethical-filosophical one, if you like a new enlightement, an ecological enlightement.
As economic actors we have to face the issue of the person’s moral integrity. Sometimes the
homo oecomomicus clashes with the homo ethicus. The managers, businessmen, and the employees
often decide for the sake of the succes in such way, that these decisions could not be acceptable
for them as private persons. So the moral integrity of the person is doubtful. If the social and
economical background favours the egoism it is hard to be reconciled with the ecological ethics
based on harmony with the other living beeings, and the environment. Two examples: the manager of a paper plant decides to reduce radically the pollution caused by his factory. The competitors of course oust him from the market without legal obligation concerning them. Our manager is a moral hero, he did more as he ought to be done, but he fell, like Don Quijote. The second
example is also about a businessman, who owns a factory. When he has been informed about the
government’s plans to make the pollution laws harder, he claims that he supports these plans
as a private person, but will fight against them with all his influence as a businessman. We sould
conclude, that the actors in the economy play within the scope, that the law allows them, and the
moral heros in this hard game likely to be losers. But for the effectiveness of the law, tehere should be a new model of global economy, which is primarily based on the sustainability.
VI. LOCAL RESISTENCE WITH TRAGIC END: THE OGONI CASE
The Ogoni case can be considered as precedente of tragic consequences of the competition
for scarce resources. In 1958, the Brittish-Dutch based Shell Corporation discovered oil fields in
Nigeria. In the following 43 years, Shell exploited oil in the Niger delta region to an estimated
worth of €35 billion. During this time, the company inflicted an estimated €5.5 billion of environmental damage on the region. While the company made some investments – of €60 million
– for social and environmental purposes to the damaged region, this sum cannot be considered
Gábor Szabó, UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT VERSUS THE HUMAN RIGHT TO SUBSISTENCE
21
fair either compared to the scale of damages, nor compared to the immense profits pocketed by
the company. The Nigerian state oil company was a majority shareholder in a consortium with
the Shell Petroleum Development Corporation (SPDC) that exploited the resources in the area.
The oil rigs and oil pipelines were considerably outdated compared to the technical standards
accepted in the company’s parent states. The company started drilling in a territory inhabited by
the Ogonis, a native tribe that largely based its living from traditional fishing and farming. Their
lands were irrigated with the waters of the forks and oxbows of the Niger river. The land and water pollution caused by Shell made these sources of income unattainable. Quantities of fish declined considerably, the water became oil-polluted thus destroying the population’s water supply.
The regular failures in the pipelines made all this a real ecological catastrophe, the explosions and
the presence of the oil rigs both resulted in severe air pollution. The scale of the pollution reached
a yearly discharge of 12 tons of methane untill the ’70’s and ’80’s, which resulted in acid rains. A
disease called ”short sickness” started to occure more significantly among the local population,
with headaches, and nerve problems as symptoms. The lethality of the disease also became alarming. And last but not least, the gorgeous tropical landscape became an industrial wasteland instead of turning into a turist paradise. Nobody has started to evaluate the potential profit to the
local community that was lost as a result.
The presence of Shell boosted tremenduously the GDP per capita, as well as the country’s
export balance, which was a positive effect in Nigeria, a country suffering from successive military dictatorships. At the same time Shell was in no need of significant local workforce, furthermore by degrading local environment, also made it impossible for much of the local community
to sustain themselves. In 1990, at the start of the Ogoni resistance, the UNDP programme on sustainable human development, including paragraph 5. proclaiming the safety of habitat, and also
prohibiting – although, as mentioned before, without any legal binding force – economic activity
which threatening with forced abandoning the habitat, was not yet in effect. It would though be
the key for sustainable development to be included among the list of human rights. Globalization requires a mobile, ”flexible” workforce, but even the first generation of human rights granted
the individual the right to choose and keep his/her habitat. The role Shell played in the improvement of Nigeria ”raw” economic indicators is far outweighed by the damage done through this
drastic disruption to the qualities of life of the Niger-delta and its inhabitants.
The first important protest of the Ogonis in 1990 was answered by the military regime which
sent a special, rapid deployment police force, which killed 80 people, wounded 200 more, and demolished 495 dwellings. Prior to the protests the Ogoni people by ”general acclaim” adopted the
Ogoni Bill of Rights, which declared the follows:
a) Political control of Ogoni affairs by Ogoni people.
b) The right to the control and use of a fair proportion of OGONI economic resources for Ogoni development.
c) Adequate and direct representation as of right in all Nigerian national institutions.
d) The use and development of Ogoni Languages in Ogoni territory.
e) The full development of Ogoni culture.
f) The right to religious freedom.
g) The right to protect the OGONI environment and ecology from further degradation.
We can see that a), b) and g) directly refers to the claim to control the economic development
and environemental portection of the Ogoni land. We can consider the document as a claim for
PRAVNI VJESNIK GOD. 31 BR. 2, 2015.
22
ethnical-cultural autonomy, which later was altered in terms of environmental degradation, corporate accountability and abuses of Nigerian security forces, they were more attractive to international NGO-s.17
The poet Ken Saro-Wiwa became the leader of the resistance, organised the Movement for
the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), and decided to take Gandhi’s path and keep the struggle peaceful. In a few months, tens of thousands joined the movement, which used mainly nonviolent methods, like barricading roads leading to Shell establishments, putting rigs under blocade, and slowing down the building of pipelines. Shell sold 90% of the energy yield abroad, and
thus provided minimal assistance to help the country supply it’s energy needs. In 1993, at the
peak of the Ogoni resistance, Niger came under the rule of the tyrant, Abacha, who earned $3
billion during his 5 years of leadership, by undisclosed means. When, at the end of 1993, the resistance appeared as an organised force against Shell, the company backed down and suspended
it’s activities in the region. As a response, Abacha launched a ruthless retaliation, resulting in the
deaths of 2000 people, forcing 80 thousand in emigration. Can there be a connection between
the company’s maneuvers and Abacha’s uncanny rise of earnings? The only thing known is Shell
went into negotiations with the dictator about the protection of their establishments, and the
arming of a special unit.
Ken Saro-Wiwa got arrested along with eight fellow resistance leaders, and was sentenced to
death disregarding any kind of fair, just trial. The sentence was carried out on the 10th of November 1995. Events hasten up from here. The regime was unable to stop the news from spreading, human rights and environmental organisations achieved huge success in publicizing the
executions. The thick walls of ignorance start to crumble after the news went global, Shell faced
consumer boycotts across Western and Northern Europe, the United States and Canada, which
resulted in a decline in share values, and the company had to book a noticeable market loss, even
in their parent states. At the end of 1995, the board of directors becomes confused, at first claiming that a multinational company is not able to control how a government profiting from it’s
activities spends the profit in question.18
In 1997 the UN Comission on HR appointed a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
rights in Nigeria, who however was not allowed to visit the country auntil after Abacha’s death
in 1998.19
After a lengthy trial, lasting from 1996 ‚till 2009 in the State of New York, Shell has been found responsible in complicity in the executions of Wiwa and his followers. Numerous documents
and statements used during the trial verify how Shell supported Abacha not just financially, but
worked together with the regime to enable severe human rights violations. Abacha organised
a campaign for the reinstatement of the company, those not signing the petition were carried
away by armed forces, and often were raped or tortured. The board of the company knew about
this but Abacha’s campaign was permitted to continue. According to the court’s sentence, the
company is obligated to pay compensation to the families of the executed.
17
Bob CLIFFORD, ”Globalization and the Social Construction of Human Rights Campaigns”. In: Alison BRYSK (ed.), GLOBALIZATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS. pp. 133–147. (2002).
18
http://www.shell.com/home/content/nigeria/about_shell/issues/ogoni/ogoni.html.
19
Koen DE FEYTER, HUMAN RIGHTS, SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE AGE OF MARKET. p. 158. (2005).
Gábor Szabó, UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT VERSUS THE HUMAN RIGHT TO SUBSISTENCE
23
Another sentence was delivered in Africa in 2001, after a more than six-year long procedure,
carried out by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The sentence finds the
government of Nigeria guilty in violating the Ogonis’ economic, social rights and right for development. In concrete, Nigeria violated people’s right to dispose freely of their wealth and natural
resources, and their right to inhabit a satisfactory environment favourable to their development.
The Comission stated; ”The Government of Nigeria facilitated the deconstruction of the Ogoniland. Contrary to its Charter obligations and despite such internationally established principles, the Nigerian Government has given the green light to private actors, and the oil companies in particular, to devastatingly affect the well-being of the Ogonis. By any measure of standards, its practice falls short of the minimum conduct expected of governments, and therefore is in
violation of Article 21 of the African Charter.”20 However, this trial did not find the company responsible.
According to the Nigerian constitution, the population of Nigeria as a whole enjoys the right
to dispose freely of its natural wealth and resource, and the government has a duty to exercise
this right in the population’s interest. De Feyter emphasises that the ethnic groups that face the
environmental and social consequences of the exploitation should also share in the rewards, at
the very least to the extent required to satisfy their basic needs.21
Another committee for investigating human rights violations, an institution only allowed
to file recommendations (without legal biding force), managed to obtain documents that clearly
confirm weapons transactions in Nigeria made by Shell. The company states these weapons were
only required to arm security services that were tasked with the protection of company infrastructure, and were in no way connected to the armed forces of the regime. Other sources used
in the New York trial contradict this, but Shell still refered to the permanent sabotage actions
against it’s rigs and pipelines.
Before the start of the Ogoni resistance, in 1970, a huge oil leak damaged the local environment. Leaks, explosions were regular, but this was the most severe. Shell did not want to
start large scale infrastructural development in the region, but used outdated technology instead, and blamed the leaks on – alleged – sabotage by the locals. More trials are still proceeding in
Port Harcourt since 1999, started by the aggrieved and certain civil organisations, against the
company in regards to this leak.22
The main, and widely cited problem is a tension between the human rights obligations of the
states and other non-state actors, like MNC-s. The non-state actors were viewed as objects, not
subjects, of the international legal system. Hystorically, corporate activity has been percieved as
part of the private sector, liable to ”discipline” only by market forces. Hence, the human rights
falling outside of notions of the market, imposing obligations for their protection and promotion exclussively on the state. ”Tracing a unique nationality of a corporation (…) difficult, if not
impossible.”23
20
African Comission on Human and People’s Rights, Report re: Communication no. 155/96 (27 May 2002), par. 58.
21
De FEYTER, supra note 20, p. 161.
22
For more details: SZABÓ, G.: ”Vállalati visszaélések, avagy az emberi jogok kiiktatása”. In: VÁLLALATI KOMMUNIKÁCIÓ A
21.SZÁZAD ELEJÉN. Borgulya, Á.; Deák, Cs. (eds.), (2011) p. 113–119.
23
Eric W. ORTS, ”The Legitimacy of Multinational Corporations”, in: PROGRESSIVE CORPORATE LAW, Lawrence E. Mitchell ed.
(1995), p. 247.
PRAVNI VJESNIK GOD. 31 BR. 2, 2015.
24
Three different approaches that have been developed to engage corporate attention to human rights.
1. The first is an attempt to regulate by international law corporate activities and actions either
positively or negatively. This attempt is still seem to be at the stage of ”ought to” than ”is”, in
legal terms lex ferenda. The only body which has made significant step forward in that direction is of the Intarnational Labour Organization.24
2. Some of the multinationals itself have developed a voluntary-self regulation, with the intent
to expand the number of involved. That kind of self-regulation is not legal, but ethical, hence lacking the legal binding force, e.g. through ethical codes, codes of conduct, mission-statements, or ethical investment pressure on the shareholders. The corporate-social responsibility movement links to this approach, as part of the economics and business ethics.25
3. According to many human rights and environmental law experts the first and second
approaches are ineffective. They think that pressure must be put on the MNC-s by legislation and deployed litigation in local courts.26 Moreover we also have to note, that consumer
boycotts, labeling campaigns sometimes more succesful, than the first and second together.
There were, and there are several attempts to regulate by law the multinational corporations. The treaites negotiated under the ILO went the furthest.27 But in more than forty treaties
we hardly can find any references to the environment. The Report of the U. N. High Comissioner
on Human Rights and Responsibilities of International Corporations and Related Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights (U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2005/91(Feb. 15, 2005) raises the question; ”What Are the Responsibilities of Business with Regard to Human Rights?” The answer of
the report is the following;
a) Principle One: Business should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights.
b) Principle Two: Business should make sure they are not complicit in human rights abuses.
Considering the Ogoni conflict, the Shell obviously violated the Priciple Two, but may be responsible for violation of the first as well.
V. CONCLUSION
The right to development and subsistence, as important parts of the values of human safety,
can be embedded into the system of human rights. The interdependent society and world we live
in screams for a farseeing and risk-alleviating politics. Symptomatic treatment of problems only
leads to new, and more severe, problems. If the costs of catastrophe reparation are paid exclusively out of loans and subsidies to poor countries, the country struck by a disaster gets even more
24
See e. g. Mzikenge Chriva DANWOOD, ”The Long March to Binding Obligations of Transnational Corporations in International
Human Rights Law”. In: AFRICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS 22. (2006).
25
See e. g. Richard T. DE GEORGE, BUSINESS ETHICS (1990), pp. 399–420.
26
See e. g.: Beth STEPHENS, ”Corporate Liability: Enforcing Human Rights Through Domestic Litigation”, in: HASTING INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW REVIEW 401, (2001), p. 24.
27
Donald K. ANTON; Dinah L. SHELTON, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS. (2011), p. 888.
Gábor Szabó, UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT VERSUS THE HUMAN RIGHT TO SUBSISTENCE
25
indebted, becomes more unstable, economically risky, and endangers even the donor countries
with refugees, epidemics, or terrorism. The need of a development model focusing on basic human needs, which this essay sought to express is remarkably well summarised by Peter Uvin. Subsistence and guaranteed rights to development are not acts of charitiy, a quid-pro-quo type of
bargain, or merely an obligation set by international law. Actually, they are a necessary consequence of the need for us to become global citizens. Humanity is interconnected with labyrinthine
threads, whether desired or not.28 We may be happy about it, or regret it, but one thing is sure:
global risks need global risk management and prevention, and development politics can play a
key role in this. If development gets on a sustainable course both on the human and the environmental scale, the following, quite well known joke gets stripped of its tragic message:
Two planets meet. The first one asks: ”How are you? You do not look quite good.”
The second answered ”I’ve got the Homo sapiens.”
”You poor thing, that’s a big problem, but don’t worry”, the other replied, ”I used to have them
as well. They won’t last long.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. ÁDÁM, Antal, Bölcselet, vallás, állami egyházjog.(Philosophy, Religion, Church-law) Pécs, Dialóg Campus Kiadó, 2007.
2. African Comission on Human and People’s Rights, Report re: Communication no. 155/96 (27
May 2002), par. 58.
3. ANDOR, László, Eltévedt éllovas. Siker és kudarc a rendszerváltó gazdaságpolitikában. (Strayed
Top Player. Success and Failure in the Hungarian Transformation’s Economic Policy) Budapest, Napvilág Kiadó, 2010.
4. ANTON, Donald K.; SHELTON Dinah L., Environmental Protection and Human Rights. Cambridge University Press, 2011.
5. CLIFFORD, B., ”Globalization and the Social Construction of Human Rights Campaigns”. In:
BRYSK, A. (ed.), Globalization and Human Rights. 2002.
6. DANWOOD, Mzikenge Chirwa, ”The Long March to Binding Obligations of Transnational
Corporations in International Human Rights Law”. In: African Journal of Human Rights 22,
2006.
7. DE FEYTER, Koen, Human Rights, Social Justice in the Age of Market. Zed Books, London,
2005.
8. DE GEORGE, Richard T., Business Ethics. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1990.
9. GLIED Viktor, Donorok és túlélők. Természeti katasztrófák és a nemzetközi politika. In: Glied-Nagy (szerk.): Függésben – Kényszerpályán a jövő? (Dependency – Is the Future on Forced
Path?) Pécs, Publikon Kiadó, 2010.
10. GOULET, David, Development Ethics. A Guide to Theory and Practice. London, Zed Books, 1995.
11. HARDT, Michael; NEGRI, Antonio, Empire. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2002.
12. MAYAKI, Ibrahim, New Approach Needed. NEPAD Dialogue, issue 264 (March) 2010.
28
See Peter UVIN, HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT. (2004) p. 201.
PRAVNI VJESNIK GOD. 31 BR. 2, 2015.
26
13. MILNER, Wesley T., Economic Globalization and Rights. An Empirical Analysis. In: Brysk,
Alison (ed.): Globaliztaion and Human Rights. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 2002.
14. KURIEN, John, The Kerala Model: Its Central Tendency and the Outlier. In: Govindan Parayil
(ed.): Kerala. The Development Experience. London, Zed Books, 2000.
15. ORTS, Eric W., ”The Legitimacy of Multinational Corporations”. In: Progressive Corporate
Law, Lawrence E. Mitchell ed., 1995.
16. SCHEIRING, Gábor, A nemzetközi fejlesztéspolitika helyzete és feladatai. In: Boda Zsolt;
Scheiring Gábor (szerk.), Globalizáció és fejlődés a félperiférián: válság és alternatívák. (Globalization and Development on the Semi-Periphery) Budapest, Védegylet; Új Mandátum Kiadó, 2011.
17. SEN, Amartya, A fejlődés, mint szabadság. (The Development as Freedom) Budapest, Európa
Kiadó, 2003.
18. SHUE, Henry, Basic Rights. Subsistance, Affluence and U.S. Foreign Policy. Princeton, Princeton
University Press, 1980.
19. STIGLITZ, Joseph E., A globalizáció és visszásságai.(Globalization and its Discontents) Budapest, Napvilág Kiadó, 2003.
20. SZABÓ, Gábor, Szétszakadó világunk. A globalizáció emberi jogi kockázatai. (Our Splitting World. The Human Rights Consequences of Globalization) Pécs, Publikon Kiadó, 2010.
21. SZABÓ, Gábor, Vállalati visszaélések, avagy az emberi jogok kiiktatása. In: Borgulya, Ágnes;
Deák, Csaba, Vállalati kommunikáció a 21. század elején. (Corporate Communication in the
Begining of the 21st Century) Miskolc, Z-Press, 2011.
22. STEPHENS, Beth, ”Corporate Liability: Enforcing Human Rights Through Domestic Litigation”. In: Hasting International and Comparative Law Review 401, 2001.
23. UNDP: Human Development Report. New York, Oxford University Press, 1994.
24. UVIN, Peter, Human Rights and Development. Bloomfield, Kumarian Press, 2004.
25. TARRÓSY, István, Érzelmek geopolitikája. In: Bretter, Zoltán; Glied, Viktor; Vörös, Zoltán
(szerk.), Az elkötelezett tanító. Tiszteletkötet Csizmadia Sándor 65. születésnapjára. (The Committed Professor, Tribute to Sándor Csizmadia) Pécs, Publikon Kiadó, 2012.
26. WALLERSTEIN, Immanuel, A modern világgazdasági rendszer kialakulása. (Selected Essays of
Immanuel Wallerstein) Budapest, Gondolat Kiadó, 1983.
27. ZÜRN, Michael, ”Globale Gefahrdungen und Internationale Kooperation”. In: Der Bürger im
Staat, 1995.
WEB SITES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
www.grain.org
www.seano.who.int
www.nationmaster.com
www.shell.com
www.un.org/documents
Gábor Szabó, UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT VERSUS THE HUMAN RIGHT TO SUBSISTENCE
27
Dr. sc. Gábor Szabó, izvanredni profesor,
Katedra političkih znanosti i socijalne teorije,
Sveučilište u Pečuhu, Republika Mađarska
NEODRŽIV RAZVOJ NASUPROT LJUDSKOG PRAVA NA OPSTANAK
Sažetak
Nije dovoljno razumjeti i prihvatiti činjenicu da su najopasniji problemi s kojima se
čovječanstvo mora suočiti oni globalni i da je stoga njihovo sprječavanje i smanjivanje moguće
samo koordiniranim transnacionalnim naporima. Pravo na razvoj kao ljudsko pravo nova je grana u sustavu ljudskih prava. Strategije razvoja stoga treba usmjeriti prema osnovnim ljudskim
potrebama. Glavnu ulogu u podupiranju zloporaba ljudskih prava imaju oni izvori kojih je malo,
koji su ograničeni. Prevladaju li programi koji odvajaju ljudska prava od iskorištavanja ograničenih izvora, zaustavit će se napredovanje koje je dosad postignuto vezano uz ljudska prava. Slučaj Ogoni možemo smatrati presedanom u kontekstu tragičnih posljedica u utrci za ograničenim izvorima.
Ključne riječi:
razvoj, ljudska prava, pravo na razvoj, indeks ljudskog razvoja, slučaj Ogoni
PRAVNI VJESNIK GOD. 31 BR. 2, 2015.
28
Dr. Gábor Szabó, auserordentlicher Professor,
Lehrstuhl für Politologie und Sozialtheorie,
Universität Pécs (Ungarn)
NICHTNACHHALTIGE ENTWICKLUNG VERSUS MENSCHENRECHT
AUF ENTWICKLUNG
Zusammenfassung
Verständnis und Akzeptierung der Tatsache, dass die meisten Gefahren, mit denen die
Menschheit konfrontiert ist, global anwesend sind, sowie dass deren Vorbeugung und Milderung nur durch koordinierte transnationale Bemühungen möglich sind, sind noch immer nicht
befriedigend. Das Recht auf Entwicklung stellt als Grundrecht einen neuen Zweig des immer
mehr wachsenden Baums der Menschenrechte dar. Die Entwicklungsstrategien sollten auf die
für die Existenz des Menschen grundlegenden Bedürfnisse fokussiert werden. Mangelnde Ressourcen spielen aber heute die wichtigste Rolle im Bereich der Missachtung der Menschenrechte. Im Falle, dass die Programme einen Unterschied zwischen den Grundrechten und der Nutzung der für die Existenz des Menschen notwendigen Ressourcen machen, wird der im Bereich
der Menschenrechte erlangte Fortschritt einen umgekehrten Effekt haben. Der Fall Ogoni kann
als Prezädenzfall im Sinne der tragischen Konsequenzen der Konkurrenz um knappe Ressourcen betrachtet werden.
Schlagwörter:
Entwicklung, die Menschenrechte, Recht auf Entwicklung, HDI, der Ogoni-Fall